Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1887-06-02

rum my tufther attendance upon thig
court their term Of service as iurors end
ing with Thursday. They refused TO tell
now they stood, having agreed to this
determination before leaving the inrv
room, but IL leaked out that thew atood
eight for the plaintiffs and four for line
defendant.
AT the opening of superior court Friday
morning, Charles b. Lore, Esq, made
inc closing argument for the plaintiff In
the case OF the Riverside Lumber Com
pany vs.. j. Frank Ruth and Thomas
Hampton. After brief charge by Chief
Justice oomegys, the jury at 10. 45 o'clock
The next caHe called was that Of Eliza
beth Matthews and others, trading aa
John Matthews, vs.. Garrett s. Smith.
Messrs. Conrad and Ward for plaintiffs,
and L. Q. vandegritt, ESQ.,, for the de-.
PENDANT. This ia an action for repleyin,
Mr.. Conrad stated that W. q. IL. Dolau-
noun, druggist in this city, bought from
the firm Of John Matthews o soda water
apparatus for $d00, with the provision
that the amount was TO be paid in full
before the title in the property should
be vested in Oolquhoun. The latter paid
only $3.50, leaving $3.50 due, and subse.
quently sold his stock and business to the
firm of Anderson n Smith. Anderson
afterwards Withdrew, and Smith, the de-
PENDANT, now conducts the business. The
suit Is to recover the $3.50, the plaintiffs
claiming the soda water apparatus aB their
property until the balance is paid.
The original agreement between the
firm Of John Matthews and Colquhoun
was admitted in evidence, and then Will
liam o. Il. Oolquhoun was called by Mr.,
Conrad, as il under cross-examination.
he being party to the original contract.
Mr.. Vandegrift objected, as the witness
was not a party ''for whose immediate
benefit such proceeding is prosecuted or
defended," as required by the statute
governing such testimony. He also said
that the plaintiff had q Judgment against
Colquhoun. The objection was over
ruled, and the witness admitted his sig
nature TO the agreement. He said he
gave 800 cash and six notes of $50 each
for the cost of the apparatus, of which
there notes were paid and the balance set
tied for.
Mr.. Conrad here read the agreement
made In regard TO the apparatus. 1t was
Of the "ironolad" order, providing that
ownership should not rest in the pur-
chaser until the full amount was paid, and
authorizing the sellers, In case OF default
of payment to enter in and upon any
premises and take possession of such ma
chine, with or without the process of law,
the partial payments, in such events, to
be considered as going towards the ex-
penses of removing the apparatus, wear
and tear. 30.
The three unpaid notes, $50 each, were
offered in evidence. The witness said
he used the apparatus from April, 1883,
until January, 1885, and then sold out
his business and stock to Anderson 81
Smith. On REORGANIZATION witness
said he sold the apparatus, with the other
| fixtures, to Anderson ~ Smith.
Garrett b. Smith, the defendant, was
also called by tie plaintiff under cross
examination, and said the apparatus WAS
purchased with other stock by Anderson
n Smith from Colquhoun. Witness sue
ceeded Anderson n smith, of which firm
he was o member. He said the firm re-
ceiyed letter from Mr.. Conrad in rela-
tion to the apparatus, in consequence OF
| which they called three times at Mr.. Con-
RAIDS office, but failed to find him ia. No
demand for the apparatus was made, un-
less that letter could be considered de-
Inand. The letter was received on April
| Sd, 1886, short time before the iissoiu-
ton of tho firm of Anderson Il Smith.
Mr.. Conrad desired the letter to be adj
miited in evidence, az he considered 1t q
demand. The court, however, decided
that II was in no sense demand, and II
was ruled out. MIR. Conrad also wanted
/ to know il he could call the defendants
counsel to prove that he advised his
client to refuse the demand for the up.
paratus, but the court peremptorily re-
| fused TO allow such proceeding. Such
a course, the chief Justice said, would
tend to utterly destroy the confidence OK
listing between counsel and client, and
would put the counsel in the position Of
preiudicing his clients cause.
| The plaintiff here rested and MIR. Van.
degrift, for the defendant, moved for O
nonsuit, on the ground Of n failurea Ia
prove demand for the property, as re-
quired by law.
The court held that in an action of re-
pIevin 1t was imperatively necessary tt
prove the demand and refusal. Tho non
| suit was granted. -.----.---
At 12.25 O'Clock, lie jury in the ca {
of the Riverside Lumber Company vs.
Rath and Hampton, came into court with
n verdict for the plaintiff for $653.54, the
i full amount claimed. The jury was dis.
/ charged from any further attendance OF
4 this court, the second panel OF juror
Il beinp now in service.
Tilehman Johnston, ESQ.,, of defend
ants counsel, moved for an arrest Of
Judgment, and was allowed time to fill
reasons for the motion.
The jury was discharged until II
/ O'Clock Saturday morning and court ad
iourned until 8 O'Clock, p. m. The after
noon was occupied by motions and argu
ments on rules.
/ In the superior court on Saturday GeOrg'
v. Massey, ESQ.,, presented the petition o
the Fruit. Growers National Bank o.
SMYRNA, stating that at the sale OF thu
| goods and chnttels of the Lord u Polk Com
| 5any of Odessa, the sum OF $lD, $3.50 wa
realized after payment OF costs and fees
which sum was paid into court by Sherll
| Iambson at the instance OF alleged eredl
tors, who had neither lien or execution
against the property. There were, now
aver. four judgments lying against thi
fund. amounting to $S, 156 90, and the pc
alton asked that tho court make an orde
| directing the sheriff, after satisfying thes'
fonr judgments, to pay the balance
an fSi. SCI 10 the petitioner, on account
| n Judgment obtained by the bank agains
| the Lord II Polk Company for vi $50 Wy
| with interest from March 22d, 1887. MIR
Massey said that the parties upon wnos
application the money had been paiu iht
| hoa mot nIdutnan Judgment.
Anthony Higgins, Esq.i representing IN
] National bank OF Commerce and tine Mel
! chnnts Exchange National BARK OF NeN
Vork cjtv. with claims OF 81, 500 each, o
whose npplIcntiOn the money had been pal
into court, resisted the petition. He sal
hB had recovered Judgments yesterday
being too much occupied In trials 70 90 :
sooner, and asked the court not hct upo
, the petitlon to-day. He SAID inc otle
! indph,epts had been given contrary to legl
right and his clients had Alright to a par
| OF the fund. -, q.
, | MIR. Massey's petition. -,
waiter Hayes, Esq, called to the stan
, peter j. Ford, who exhibited the minnl
book OF the Ford n Ryan Company.
/ showed that ut the organization OF the con
. pany, Thomas and Peter =. rora al
!, Thomas Ryan were elected directors, M
subsequently Thomas Ford was eieat
! president, Thomas Ryan yloe1presidoh. ~
General manager, and Peter j. Ford seer
: tarv and Treasurer. Mr.. Nields contenue
( lint this was not an election OF officers
. ina dIreetors as required by the bylaws NJ
4 charter, hut by the stockholders, The con
a held otherwise. 1t WINS stated that sher
. Lambson recently, In suits agaih
= the Ford 4 Ryan Company, went
Peter j. Ford and said 81 have proee
against you, as president OF p tnS r ranI,,
d Ryan Company, ana MT: o r4ra a. i rais,
n that the process should have been serv'
i moon the president Of the corporate
: Tbomag Ford. Tilghman Johnston, esq,
: counsel for the Ford & Ryan Company 81, ga
there should have been no misunderstsn
o inr ns the record OF the court OF ehanceI